Talk:MA37 Individual Combat Weapon System
Info error? "The MA37 (more formally Individual Combat Weapon System, Caliber 7.62 mm, MA37) is an air-cooled, gas-operated rifle firing 7.62x51mm ammunition. It is magazine-fed and is capable of fully automatic fire. The MA37 (MA5 for Marines and Navy) first entered service with the UNSC in 2437, it has remained the primary service rifle of all branches of the UNSC ever since." Bungie updated the ordnance category, so the article has an error. This weapon is classifed as MA5 for marines/navy and MA37 for the army. Biomeister 02:33, January 29, 2010 (UTC) :Whoever keeps adding that it's been replaced, stop. Its an MA5 series weapon, but it's been redesignated by the UNSC Army. As far as we (and you) know, it's still serving with Army personnel.-- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 09:05, January 29, 2010 (UTC) : :I have another error ,but I don't know how to fix it. It says that the maximum magizine capacity is 600 but I just played and it is the same max. capacity as halo 3: 352 rounds. FatalSnipe117 00:51, May 5, 2010 (UTC) Move Whatever those guys up there said. This would just be another variant of the MA5 series, since according to the Army, it's MA37, but to the UNSCMC and Navy, it's the MA5. Now although Specops306 said it was another variant and was re-designated, I would protest to this. It's known the Army as MA37, not designated by the army. For the marines and the navy, it's known to them as the MA5, and not designated by them as the MA5. Therefore, no name change. Furthermore, ...it has remained the primary service rifle of all branches of the UNSC ever since. Isn't this the MA5? So I guess we should move this to "Unnamed MA5 Variant". Even if, yes, I agree that we should name it MA37 instead of a random name saying we don't even know the name, MA37 refers to MA5, not the variant. [[User:PX173|''PX]][[User_talk:PX173|''1]]7'' 14:16, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :I vehemently disagree. Apparently, it's somewhat common in the military to have two designation for a weapon system, one example being the M40 rifle used by the US Marines and the M24 Sniper Weapon System used by the US Army. Both weapon systems utilise the same rifle, the Remington 700 rifle. I don't know why but that's just how it is.Smoke'd! Thus, the article stays and will not be moved. :"Ever since", meaning on that current date which would be October 2552. Seeing that the MA37/MA5?? has been around for 115 years, it is likely that it would cease to be in use after October 2552 once a new rifle system has been released to all UNSC branches (Hint: ''MA5B). Additionally, seeing that we know nothing about the Marine version of the MA37 ICWS, it is best to just leave the article as it is (which could potentially have a different role/mechanics/etc).- 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 14:32, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::You don't get my point, do you? "MA37" refers to "MA5", not the variant, hence "MA5 for Marines and Navy". It does not refer to the variant. As for the 115 years of service, the slope regarding our technological development has been getting less and less steep. It's like the Nanosuit in Crysis; it was the "perfect" armor(or whatever), and it would be hard to make a "better" one. But there was a "better" one. It's the Nanosuit 2. Just like the MA5, they could just make newer variants instead of a completely new weapon system. And do we even have a policy regarding what we should name it as: what the Marines and Spartans call it? or what the Army calls it? [[User:PX173|''PX]][[User_talk:PX173|''1]]7'' 22:54, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :::Do we know the full name of the MA5 for the Marines? Do we know how much the Marines' MA5 differ from the MA37 in terms of role, performance, functionality or mechanics? All Bungie gave us is ''"Marines refer it as MA5" and seeing that this weapon was revealed to us as an Army version, it should stay as an Army rifle.外国人(7alk) 23:03, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::*sigh* Did it say it was a completely different rifle? It just mentioned there was a difference in the name. Nothing about technical information, just the name. [[User:PX173|''PX]][[User_talk:PX173|''1]]7'' 23:05, January 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::It could be. MA5 is a modular system, meaning it could be configured to function differently..外国人(7alk) 23:08, January 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, ''could be. I thought we didn't take any chances unless we're more than 100% sure, with enough official material released. [[User:PX173|''PX]][[User_talk:PX173|''1]]7'' 00:35, January 31, 2010 (UTC) :::::::And yours is not official too. Too broad. ;) Anyway, we don't take sides (Army are cool too, why should we just stick to Marines')... so, just leave this article be.外国人(7alk) 00:39, January 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I guess I can't agree. Bungie says that it and the MA5 are one and the same so we need to accept that. It is very, very common for weapons to be called different things by different branches of the military. Bungie gives no evidence whatsoever that they are different in the least bit. Instead, they give every reason to support their similarity in just one sentence! We need to stop deciding what we think is right and look at the facts given to us. ::::::::More importantly (and this is also the answer to Ascension's questions a few paragraphs above), Bungie doesn't say that it's just part of the MA5 series, but rather '''the' MA5. As in the first. It is not an "unidentified MA5 variant." It does not say it is part of the "MA5 series". It is referred to with a definite article. Also, because it was put in to service long before the second in the series (the MA5B) saw the light of day, common sense tells us to accept this as the canon anyways thanks to the information the fine folks at Bungie gave us. Anyways, I guess the main reason I would support the move is because the MA5 is a name used by an enormously greater percentage of the military. The Navy and Marine Corps vastly outnumbers the Army guys. We need to take Bungie's statements as the are and find a middleground that we can all agree on.--Nerfherder1428 01:51, January 31, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::But again, if that's the case, would the first MA5 be designated as just MA5 or MA5A? The Halo Universe doesn't really follow our present/current designation system and choosing between one of them would be fanon. So, let's just leave this article be until we get the real game.外国人(7alk) 02:30, January 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::Actually, it is extremely likely that the first assault rifle in the MA5 series would be called the MA5 rather than MA5A. Weapon manufacturers don't add the version designation into the name of a gun (MA5A, MA51, MA5Uno) if it's the first and only planned weapon of the line. This actually makes sense when one understands how long the MA5 was put into service before its successor, the MA5B, was planned and created. Fortunately, the fact that Bungie said it is the MA5 is actually enough to establish canon. To not accept this is to defy Bungie's information, and is therefore more fanon than what I am proposing. ::::::::::I have given exactly two points of canon that legitimize my reasoning. Whatever way you want to argue it, I can prove I'm right. If you think it's in the MA5 series (which Bungie has clearly said it is), but not the first MA5, all I need do is point to you that it came out long before the second MA5, the MA5B. Now if you think it's the first MA5-series weapon but don't know about its name, the quote where Bungie says that Army's MA37 is called "the MA5" is pretty clear. This is not as broad and ambiguous as you guys are making it out to be.--Nerfherder1428 04:07, January 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::: :::::::::::Bungie has been known to break the fourth wall by not following the common weapon designation and I'm am relying strongly on this "proof". The way I see it, the MA5 refers to the modular weapon system and not an actual rifle itself. The proof is evident in the design of the MA5B, MA5C and MA5K. To say that the MA5 is an actual rifle would be just nonsense, though to say it is a MA5A is acceptable but again we would require confirmation from Bungie. Who knows, maybe this MA37 is another version of the MA5B used by the Marines/Navy. It is a modular weapon system after all. ::::::::::: :::::::::::Again, Bungie is a manipulative arse when it comes to using diction. That's a fact. Confusion is the best attack. ;) 外国人(7alk) 04:22, January 31, 2010 (UTC) Nerf: post the link to where they said it was the same. I want to see it. SmokeSound off! 06:39, February 1, 2010 (UTC) :Sorry it took a while Smoke, internet's been crazy the last few weeks. But go look at the Bungie.net Reach project page. Click the Ordinance link and then the MA37 picture. The very first part of the article says something to the effect of: "The MA37, known as the MA5 to the Navy and Marines, blah blah blah." It states that only the Army calls the weapon the MA37.--Nerfherder1428 18:59, February 7, 2010 (UTC) Exactly. I don't see where it says that the Army re-designated it. Aside from what you guys said. [[User:PX173|''PX]][[User_talk:PX173|''1]]7'' 13:57, February 10, 2010 (UTC) :'Reading things in context always seems to help. And I thought I said this conversation/move request was done as posted below... ::Actually CommanderTony, that is the exact statement everyone's already been arguing about the whole time. Add that plus what you posted below, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that is a little confused about which side of the argument you're supporting. Sorry to be pesky, I'm just confused about your opinion. =D --Nerfherder1428 19:34, February 10, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm on the side that it's nothing to get worked up about or that needs to be discussed. Different services throughout various militaries, not just the U.S. Armed Forces, use different designations for equipment; doesn't matter if that's a rifle, a Fighter, Helicopter, or whatever. From looking at this rifle, I can tell that it is a MA5 variant, also looking at it, I can tell it's an older and more complex design than the MA5B or MA5C, keeping in line with the notion that Army units are second to Marine Corps in terms of funding and technology. Simply from taking a glance at it as well, I sense that this is a meaner rifle than the Marine's MA5, the sound of it is different, the ruggedness is different. The MA37 is indeed a member of the MA5 family, yes...but it is not the same rifle we saw in Halo: Combat Evolved or Halo 3. Then again...PX173 is cluttering up the recent changes consisting of useless requests on talk pages, with no research or basis behind it. So i'll say it again, this conversation is over on the request that it be changed to something "MA5-y". This is an MA37, it may be an MA5 to the Marines, but i'm pretty sure the Army just doesn't give two frak's what they think. :::I'm under the assumption that this is the MA5A. We'll have to wait for Bungie to confirm it. Halo addict 00:45, May 6, 2010 (UTC) A possible answer... As I don't feel like giving a long answer, i'll just post this instead: [[Wikipedia:CAR-15#GUU-5/P|'''GUU-5/P]]. Thankfully, these pointless arguments are now finally over. So please people, before you presume to criticize Bungie about their apparent "lack" of knowledge on military knowledge...learn such information yourself. Rawr, Merge Proposal Firstly, read this. Place the cursor over the MA37. Done? Now, onwards to the merge proposal: Seeing that the UNSC Army merely redesignated the MA5C, it is suggested that we should merge the article and follow the format as seen in Tony's previous post (*points at above*). Voting # - 5əb'7aŋk(Σάπτανκ) 11:55, April 29, 2010 (UTC) # - Other than graphical detail the rifle looks and works like the MA5C. SNOR{3} 21:08, April 29, 2010 (UTC) # - In my opinion, if it doesn't look like an MA5C and it doesn't bark like an MA5C, it's not an MA5C. :The sound is different and besides the basic outline, the gun has been completely redesigned. We do know from previous material that the gun is a form of some MA5 weapon, but as it only passes for a basic resemblence of Halo 3's AR, I can't agree that this is the correct MA5 rifle. :Upon first examination of the source, I immediately thought it strange that its designation does not say "MA37. I then realized that the description for it and the Halo 3 weapon are also the same. Most of the other exact-model returning weapons (energy sword, pistol, rocket launcher, needler) have completely different descriptions, so this makes me beleive that Bungie had copied over the basic template and forgot to change the AR window. Although I don't like the explanation that there may be a typo, it would certainly appear that this may legitimately be the case.--Nerfherder1428 22:15, April 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Bungie has spoken. It has been confirmed. Just stop denying it. It's a fact. You forgot the fact that only the UNSC Army refers the rifle as the MA37 whereas the UNSC Navy refers it as the MA5C as pointed out by Tony in previous sections. Seriously, I thought we've finished discussing this useless issue...Sketchist 01:31, April 30, 2010 (UTC) :::Damn it Ascension… Read my post. If you scrolled way above in this page, you’d see that it was me who first brought up the fact that the Army designates it the MA37 and that the Navy calls it the MA5 (And not MA5C btw. Check the original source on the Ordinance page). I was one of the original ones who wanted to merge this page. In fact, I thought I recalled that you were against it! But bygones. However, if you paid any attention, it was Tony who didn't want to merge it because he wanted to keep the MA37 name as it reflects the army variation of a naval weapon. And yes, I did mention that fact. It’s not too much to ask you to patiently take your time researching the entire conversation before commenting. :::You see, you are compounding evdence for two separate arguments. One debate is over whether the MA37 is an MA5 weapon. And that's done. Bungie stated that themselves. That's what you'e accusing me of denying. But that's not the case. What we are arguing about now, is that there is no reliable source that says it was the MA5'C' specifically. The only source that says that it was the MA5C (and not just an unnamed MA5 like Bungie has stated) was a pre-beta service record which all evidence leads us to believe is an honest-to-god typo. :::Like I said, all weapons (except beat-down and grenades) got new descriptions in the service record. Yet the AR says MA5C and the same information (“gas-powered, yadayada) as the MA5C AR info in Halo 3 did. Why would they not change that one gun? One that clearly is different anyways? That DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. It makes even less sense when Bungie has only referred to the gun as MA37 (and MA5 once) in all promotional material and official information. The service record would (should) use that terminology as well. Which means, as Bungie likely copied the template from the existing H3 and ODST service records and simply changed weapon pictures and info, it could very well have been a case where a developer skipped over the assault rifle slot on accident when making the edits.--Nerfherder1428 03:09, April 30, 2010 (UTC) :::: ::::I would just like to say that though I rescind the above argument on the grounds that Durandal has provided a previously unknown canon source below, everything I said above is still valid. I can't say there's not a quality canon source anymore, so we must agree that this is the MA5C Mk. 4. However, I still oppose that we merge this article. Bungie gave us an army name for this army weapon variant (Mk.4!)and I stand behind Tony when I say we use it. We can link the two on each page. --Nerfherder1428 10:40, April 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::"Annoyance is sometimes one of the best tools to win an argument, thought not always effective..." :::::This might be pointless, but it's better to provide an explanation as to why I acted so: I am aware that I opposed the previous merging proposals as I do so because of the lack of evidences at the time ("MA5 is really vague!") but with new evidences given to us, I changed my position on the merge. It's a fairly simple process: provide me an solid evidence and I will believe.Sketchist 01:31, May 1, 2010 (UTC) :::::The similarities between the two weapons outweigh the differences; the fact that both fires 32 rounds, and fires the same ammunition type. In other words, MA37 is simply the redesignated MA5C used by the Army and judging by the design, the MA37 has the old design (skeletal) before it was converted to the MA5C's new design. To have them as separate articles would be useless as this article would simply repeat the information covered in the MA5C, hence making it redundant and not concise. That is why I've stated that we would follow Wikipedia's format (*points at above*).- 5əb'7aŋk(Σάπτανκ) 12:47, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # - It can't be an MA5C because it wasn't in use untill the Halo 3 era and it's a marine only weapon. Plus, it looks completely different in most aspects. You can't judge what a weapon is by what it says on its model, as the M6G in Halo 3 says 'M6C' on the side.--FluffyEmoPenguin 01:22, April 30, 2010 (UTC) ::See my reply to Nerfherder.Sketchist 01:31, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # - Bungie has spoken. It has been confirmed. Sketchist 01:31, April 30, 2010 (UTC) :*Where? It says it's the Army designation for the MA5, not the MA5C.--Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, 03:14, April 30, 2010 (UTC) ::*Just wanted to chime in and say that if you look at this screenshot here the text says MISRIAH ARMORY MA5C-MK4 M45A771B 7.62mm NATO Round Payload Mag. Air cooled gas operated Assault Rifle. Hope that helps. Durandal-217 03:33, April 30, 2010 (UTC) :::Thanks Durandal. That helps a lot. I rescind my above argument then now that there's a legit source. I still oppose the merge, but I can now support the facts.--Nerfherder1428 10:40, April 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::The merge would follow Wikipedia's format (*points at above*).- 5əb'7aŋk(Σάπτανκ) 12:40, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # As per Subtank/CommanderTony--Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, 13:35, April 30, 2010 (UTC) # - Well it is a type of Assault Rifle but I don't want to merge articles before all the information is realeased. # - If we are to do anything, the time to do it is not now. How about we wait until the actual game is released and make an informed decision then based on what it says in the official manual, rather than acting impulsively now without a full picture and looking like mighty arseholes later on? And while I'm at it, may I direct everyone's attention to This, yet another example of what is stamped on the weapon contradicting canon.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 15:04, May 3, 2010 (UTC) # - It isn't an MA5C!!!!Gogeta21 23:55, May 3, 2010 (UTC)!!!! # - As per The All-knowing Sith'ari. [[User:Kougermasters|'Kougermasters']] [[User talk:Kougermasters|(Talk)]] 14:30, May 4, 2010 (UTC) # - this is a weapon belonging to the UNSC Army. naturally, there will be subtile differences between the MA37 and the MA5C to better suit the needs between the Army and the Marine Corps. --WhellerNG 03:02, May 5, 2010 (UTC) # - The difference between the two weapons that they should be given their own seperate articles. Perhaps add a small section in the MA5C article. Warhead xTEAMx 09:44, May 6, 2010 (UTC) # - Depends. Is it just the army name for the MA5C? if it is then merge them, put in a sepreate section for the MA37. If not, then keep it how it is. Jabberwock xeno 22:53, May 8, 2010 (UTC) :Yes, the MA37 is an army name for the MA5C.- 5əb'7aŋk(Σάπτανκ) 22:56, May 8, 2010 (UTC) ::But canonicly, are there ANY diffrences other then the name? If there are, then I'll change my view to Oppose. (PM me or whatever if you find any, then redirect me back here, or just change it yourself if you do)Jabberwock xeno 23:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC) LISTED AS MA5C The MA37 is listed as an MA5C at Bungie.net, does this make it so that it should be merged with MA5C? :That is what the merge proposal is about. *points above section* - 5əb'7aŋk(Σάπτανκ) 20:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)